Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Those Wacky Regents: II

When Maryland jumped to the Big 10 on Nov. 19, it did so after a
couple of hastily arranged secret meetings by the Board of Regents, with
university administrators. Even though the chairman of the regents said
these were not, under state law, "meetings," there are now draft
"meeting notes" online for approval at the regents' Dec. 7 meeeting.

The regents apparently first heard of this on Nov. 15; by Saturday
the 17th they were told there would be a conference-call meeting the
next day.

The “draft meeting notes” of two secret meetings were made available
on Dec. 3 and they are contained online in a link on the agenda for the
upcoming meeting.

They do answer a few questions about who was there and what was discussed.
They say, in full:

DRAFTUniversity System of Maryland Board of Regents
Special Meeting on November 18, 2012
Meeting Notes

A. Chairman Shea noted that the meeting was in closed session and the
regents were advised by Assistant Attorney General Faulk regarding the
confidentiality and other legal issues pertaining to the closed session.

B. The regents were briefed on the proposal for UMCP to move from the ACC to the Big Ten.

C. The regents were briefed on the status of an ICA review for Towson State University.

University System of Maryland Board of Regents
Special Meeting on November 19, 2012
Meeting Notes

A. The regents continued the discussion from November 18 on the details of the Big Ten proposal to UMCP to join the league.

B. The regents were provided with additional detail regarding the
proposal for the UMCP move from the ACC to the Big Ten. After
discussion, thirteen regents endorsed the UMCP application to the Big
Ten; one regent did not endorse the application.

C. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

If you were inclined to pen a complaint for the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board, it might cover these items:

No Recorded Vote to Close
The minutes fail to record a motion and vote to close the meeting.
Rather, on Nov. 18, they record a diktat by the chairman that “the
meeting is closed.”

Mandatory Citation
The minutes fail to give a specific statutory citation for each closed session topic.

Topics
Apparently the topics were “UMCP to move from the ACC to the Big Ten”
and something indecipherable, an “ICA review for Towson State
University.” A topic must be meaningful, not jargon or boilerplate, in
order to satisfy the Open Meetings Act.

Reason for barring public from Discussion of Each Topic
The minutes fail to identify the reason for closing the session for either topic.

People Attending
The minutes fail to identify who was present, specifically. The
boilerplate “other USM office and institutional staff” does not fulfill
the statutory requirement. And were one or more officials from the Big
Ten also participants?

Actions Taken
The minutes fail to identify what actions, if any, was taken at the
Sunday meeting. We assume from news reports and the university
officials’ statements that one action was to agree to meet secretly
again on Monday morning. Apparently the followup was set up via email
shortly after non-“adjournment” of the Sunday meeting.

Adjournment Motion and Vote (an action) Not Recorded
The minutes fail to note when the Sunday meeting was adjourned. However, it had to be adjourned, because:

Closed Sessions cannot be “continued.”
On Monday, “The regents continued the discussion from November 18 on the
details of the Big Ten proposal to UMCP to join the league.”
Unfortunately, this requires separate meeting notice; convening in open
session; and a properly handled vote to close the session to the public.

Failure to Notify Public of Location
We note that the Monday meeting was held away from the location of a
previously scheduled regent committee meeting, which gives the
appearance of deliberately seeking to avoid the press and the public.
After all, by Sunday night, word had leaked out about the Big Ten
discussion.

Votes Must Be Recorded
Merely saying “thirteen regents endorsed the UMCP application to the Big
Ten; one regent did not en-dorse the application” does not provide the
legally necessary information on the motion and vote, in-cluding who
voted and how. See 7 OMCB 237.

Minutes are Minutes
We note that minutes are minutes, not matter what they are called, and
they are required to present certain minimum information for the public.
Calling minutes “meeting notes” does not excuse any public body from
its statutory obligations to provide accurate, informative minutes.

The interested reader is directed to several OMCB Opinions on the web:

8OMCB46
We point without hesitation to the MDTA and 8 OMCB 46 on the subject of
“emergency” meetings held without sufficient public notice, that is, the
Sunday confab; and a meeting “convened in closed session” – a legal
impossibility.

7OMCB237
“Minutes to disclose how each member votes when a recorded vote is required.”

5OMCB184
We also point to Chestertown and 5 OMCB 184 on the subject of
“continued” closed sessions, that is, Monday’s secretive gathering and
vote. Which makes Monday’s meeting an illegal closed session, be-cause
it is not possible to legally “continue” a secret meeting to a secret
future time and place.